Topic: bitbet.us scammers ignore delivered BFL products - page 5. (Read 11554 times)

How about that 1000btc bet you made?

Can I have an opinion too?

If you allow a bet that does not nail down what is being delivered, then the bit can quite easily be rigged by BFL sending out a shoebox the day before.

The bet was made 30th March. The revised jalapeño spec was put out in April. At that point you could argue the spec had 'officially changed' should you want to.

The video shows power consumption, I agree. Where in the video does it state that this is the new spec?

The forum thread discusses power consumption, I aree. Where in the thread does it state this is the new spec?

Comprehension is critical. You fail it.

Don't misrepresent what i say it discredits your argument. The words I say are the words I meant, your interpretation, and then rephrasing of what I say are your words, and are most definitely not what I meant.

As I said about riker, I say about you, you are arguing semantics.

You say "BitBet misled it's users". I say when the bet was created there was no confusion about the spec.

You say "By the time that bet was made, BFL had already changed the specifications" they had not. So when you claim that I know that, that is patently false.

You then go on to reiterate this falsehood, like you have some how proven it. You have not.

Specs were announced, at no point prior to the creation of the bet (30th march) had there been any indication that BFL were changing the spec of the products they were shipping.

BFL had made announcements that the prototype was using more power, and they had also stated that they were working to reduce this power. That does not equate to "We have changed the spec".

You are failing at basic reading comprehension. That is not a personal attack, it is a statement of fact as evidenced by the fact that you read words and then claim those words mean something they do not. As you fail at reading comprehension, then you are ill qualified to have any sort of credible opinion on this subject.

Unless of course you do comprehend the meaning of words, but are attempting to intentionally misrepresent them, merely to further your own argument.

Which is it?

Just gonna throw my two cents into the ring here:

I know a bet was submitted around that time that was rejected that didn't include the power requirement clause.  Now why would that bet be rejected?  Seems to me that it would be because our good friends at MPOE wanted to scam more people out of money...

As a side note, the 5 GH/s miner has always been listed at the power requirement and performs within the advertised specs.  If the bet was made after the announcement of the 5 GH/s miner, then BFL delivered as advertised.  If the bet was made prior to the announcement of the 5 GH/s miner, then therein lies the confusion.  I don't know much about this bet, as I don't keep up with the betting sites, but I'm just giving food for thought.

Hate to say I told you so, but this type of resolution is exactly thing kind of thing I'd expect from MPEX heh. 

Yeah, right, because if it's not going to be favorable to the scam you wish to push then it should not be allowed. Get a life. Scammer.

To that part there's of course the now famous BFL/Vleisides interview he ran back in September that'd have to be contended with.

Here's an official video from the 30/03/13 demonstrating the ASIC and clearly showing the power consumption. This is the video mentioned in the 28th March update I guess.

Here's a thread on the BFL forum discussing the revised power consumption. Those discussion seem to based on statement made in the ShoutBox. You can see the transcript here.

The fact that you had to jump on to an IRC channel to get that vital information instead of it being presented in the actual bet proves that BitBet misled it's users. If BitBet were an advertiser, that would be the equivalent of false advertising, and Ofcom would bitch slap them for it.


Exactly. By the time that bet was made, BFL had already changed the specifications. I know that, you know that and BitBet also knows that. BitBet simply ignored this fact, and used the specifications from about 6 months earlier.


You've already pointed out that the specs had changed by the time the bet was made.

I agree wholly with this 2 points you have made.

Im still watching the results, may I have some specific links to where BFL changes their power quotes ?
Something official please if you can find it.

Bump. Waiting for a response from BitBet.

You keep presenting your opinion of things as inherent properties of those things.

You keep qualifying things.

You do not see anyone else's point of view other than your own.

The difference is that I, and no doubt others here,  could argue *your* side better than you are.

Only if you fully understand both sides can you draw a rational conclusion. If you refuse to understand the 'resolve to no' side, then of course you will inevitably continue to think that it should have been yes.

Why do I need to look deeper? What is it that you think your timetable is going to show that hasn't already been re-hashed a million times. You're whole case is based on your opinion of what constitutes advertising - to which you have added arbitrary conditions. Your opinion of what constitutes performance - to which you have applied conditions.

The decision that was made was unconditional, rational and in the circumstances fair on balance. All things being equal anyone without a vested interest would likely have drawn the same conclusion because it was clear that what was promised was not what was delivered, however close it may have been in some selected aspects.

I don't know what jurisdiction you are in, but I am UK and we have various legislative bodies that deal with this (under the auspice of the office of fair trading), and a large number of statutory instruments to protect consumers from the predatory practices of companies who misrepresent products in order to deceive and potentially defraud customers.

The key thing here is that this body even exists, the implication being that this kind of practice would occur if it was unregulated. Legal precedent is quite clear with regards false advertising. If a company made claims about its product on its website (note ther is no qualification that it must be on a 'product page' or other specific medium, that those claims could quite easily be used as evidence against them in a court of law were that company to then deliver a product that did not live up to those claims. There isn't a solicitor (lawyer) in the land that would be stupid enough to try and argue otherwise.

Thats pretty much what has happened here. BFL said our products do XYZ on their website. The product page only listed X and Y (though Z was still implied at the time the bit was created). On the same day the bet was created we got the first 'rumours' they were having trouble with power, but the attitude was very much that of - we are working to get it down. (This would imply that they had some target? no?) as april rolled around there was more chatter of we are getting the power down. Then things started to change, products started being rejigged, the BFL line was we aren't going to hit 1w but it wont be loads more. Talk of changing up the factor, PSU cooling being needed on the previously passively cooled jalapeño.

At this point my thought process was as follows: "Hmm, looks like they aren't gonna hit spec, and there is a bet here that says as much, why I can't lose... I wonder what spec means *jumps on IRC, has suspecions concerned* hmm think ill plunk 20 down on that..."

That kind of chatter made it pretty clear they weren't gonna hit the performance they'd promised (sure they would hit one of the metrics, and if you were to arbitrarily decide that one metric was important and another wasn't - as you have - then you could say they hit performance. Why would you do that though, its the equivalent to lying by omission.) BFL even said it.

So when they virtua-shipped a device end of march to luke-jr (does that even count), then as april progressed they irl-shipped a few boxes to others (uh oh 6x power consumption though and is that guy on codinginmysleep real or is it still actually a scam?), and by the end of april they had gone crazy and got double digits out the door. They satisfied the 'shipped' and 'asic' part, but, as I said on the bet discussion at the time:

"All these ASICs and none of 'em to spec. So sad."

So there is an answer. Whether you deem it "good" well, thats just your opinion 'innit.

I haven't seen a single good answer in this thread that would answer the above questions, feel free to point me to one. When I'm less busy, I will draft a timetable of events / posts and to make it more clear what happened.

No, you'd just like to pretend like the answers aren't there. This sort of bullshit does not work. Read the thread.

If you looked deeper into this, you'd see that it was not on a solid basis at all.

You seem to do a lot with Bitcoin and you often have strong opinions which could be seen by many as flamebait but if they look deeper they will see you often have a pretty solid basis for whatever you are claiming. I like that. So when people start making BS accusations the least I can do is set them straight.

I striked away the 20 BTC bet talks. The issue of a very unprofessional bet resolving still exists.

BitBet, could you please explain why you resolved the bet on the ambiguous part of the bet and why you chose questionable sources(and only one part of the story) instead of the actual product pages and their FAQ? I'd like to get clear on this.